ATLANTA (AP) For the first time in two years, Gov. Sonny Perdue laid out good news to a Georgia Legislature weary of budget cuts, outlining a proposed $1 billion budget increase for next year that will put bulldozers to work on school, road and port construction projects across the state.

But even as he outlined his proposed $17.4 billion spending package to a joint legislative session Wednesday night, he cautioned that the ``New Georgia'' he envisions as the first Republican governor since 1870 is one of making government an instrument to help people do more for themselves not to do it for them.

Apparently responding to criticism that he has been an unambitious governor, Perdue insisted in a combined State of the State and budget address that the path to greatness for a state is not one of increasing the size of government or adding new programs.

``We don't want a busybody government a boss that butts into our lives every chance it gets to tell us how to work, how to play, where to live and on and on,'' he said. ``And we don't want to perpetuate an entitlement mentality that causes people to expect more and more from the government and less and less of themselves.''

``The starring role belongs to We The People the citizens of Georgia who are the true strength of our state,'' he said.

It was the first time since his election in 2002 that he was speaking to a fully appreciative crowd. Both chambers now are under Republican control. For the first two years of his term, Democrats held the house.

His allies rewarded him with two dozen rounds of applause, often rising to their feet.

They also punished his enemies. Democratic Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor, who by custom presides over joint sessions of the Legislature, was not allowed to wield the gavel. Taylor hopes to challenge Perdue for re-election in 2006.

The new House leaders told Taylor in a letter just hours before the event that they would handle those chores, themselves. Joint sessions always are held in the larger House chambers.

Taylor, delivering the response afterward for Democrats, attacked Perdue for ``a lack of vision, a lack of priorities, a lack of leadership'' in presiding over two years of steep cuts to education and health care, and said Perdue should have focused on the strained state of Georgia families rather than the state of the state.

But House Speaker Glenn Richardson, R-Hiram, said of the address, ``I thought it was great. This was a speech from the heart.''

Some of the budget initiatives Perdue announced in the speech were old news the 2 percent pay raise for teachers, state employees and university system personnel; full formula funding for K-12 schools and the university system; and the hiring of 500 new state child care workers and more driver's license examiners. He already had made those announcements at previous events.

Teachers previously had said they were unhappy with the size of the raise, and the speech did not change their minds.

Merchuria Chase Williams, president of the Georgia Association of Educators, said, ``Clearly, it's not enough,'' and added that with the 13 percent increase Perdue proposes for their health care premiums, they will lose further ground.

Despite earlier concerns that health programs like Medicaid and PeachCare for Kids would take heavy hits, they won't. Perdue said no one currently eligible for those programs will lose their eligibility, although some services will be scaled back and some payments to medical providers will be reduced.

That fear resulted from Perdue's announcement to state agency heads last year that they must show him where their budgets could be cut more. In the previous two years, state agencies absorbed cuts of more than $1 billion.

A rebounding economy enabled him to spare most agencies from the ax. One that wasn't: the Secretary of State's office, headed by Democrat Cathy Cox who also plans to challenge Perdue for the governor's office in 2006.

Part of the new money in the budget will pay first-year principal-and-interest costs on an additional $1 billion in new debt, about the same as Perdue proposed last year. About $400 million of the money will finance the governor's ``Fast Forward'' program to relieve traffic congestion in the metro Atlanta area and build or improve rural roads.

Other construction will occur at public schools, colleges and universities and technical schools.

In policy areas, Perdue said he will push a new initiative to put ``booster rockets on small business growth in Georgia'' by offering a new tax exemption for small businesses. In addition, he said he hopes to eliminate many burdensome government regulations.

``Survival is tough enough without the government coming along to poke a stick in your eye with costly, poorly considered and, can I say dumb regulations.''

Perdue also said he will propose a tourism growth initiative and one targeting strategic industries by offering a $500-per-job tax credit for Georgia companies that expand.

The government's safety net is important, he said, but should be augmented by members of the faith community. Perdue said he will again propose legislation allowing government to spend money for services provided by churches and other faith groups.

Perdue also plugged again for passage of his ethics bill, stalled for two years by Democrats when they ran the House.

``I fully expect a strong ethics bill to reach my desk by the end of the session,'' he warned. ``The people of Georgia want it and I think it's time we got it done.''

For anyone who harbors the delusion that Republicans are conservative, here's another bit of reality.

HEY PERDUE! Instead of spending increases HOW ABOUT LOWERING TAXES. LET THE PEOPLE WHO EARNED THE MONEY KEEP IT FOR A CHANGE.

But of course this is not the Republican/Democrat way - plunder from those who work and give it to the state bureaucrats to squander on their idiotic social engineering and buying votes from teachers unions, the illegal immigrants, and the indolent.

I'm waiting to see how this budget shakes out before I pass judgement, but after two years of budget cuts, the political reality is that he will have to raise spending this year. Revenue projections are up, and he can't justify the cuts on that basis. Overall, I think he has done a good job with what he's had to work with.

8
posted on 01/13/2005 4:01:44 AM PST
by Rose of Sharn
(love everything you do and do everything you love : ))

All of you who think that this is big goverment are delusional and should go back to your bunkers in the desert. One billion dollars spent on infrastructure is hardly pork.....this is a nesc. part of government, especially state government. Roads must be built and maintained, ports, and schools as well. You guys need a life!

but after two years of budget cuts, the political reality is that he will have to raise spending this year.

Nonsense. Spending increases are not a law of nature or anything like that. Government doesn't have to increase spending. It just does it because it can get away with it. We need more people like Bobby Franklin in the GA legislature.

14
posted on 01/13/2005 4:48:58 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

A spending increase, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Prices rise, the population is growing, the economy is also growing, and the state has to grow and modernize as it happens. The important thing is that, when we spend money, we do so wisely and in such a way that the people of Georgia are better served by the government.

Perdue said yesterday, "If we didn't have a monopoly on this business, we would be out of business". The state has been left in bad shape by the one party system that we Georgians have left in place too long. That is OUR fault, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Neither Perdue, nor any other Republican governor could fix that in two years. State government has to be changed, upgraded, and modernized. That takes money.

It is o.k. to offer constructive criticism, and even to offer better suggestions. Perdue has made it clear since day one that he is open to that. It is stupid, however, to attack our own when the Dems are quite willing to do that for us. I would rather have Perdue in Atlanta restructuring and improving our government than to have Mark Taylor or Cathy Cox up there reverting the state back to the old days of good old boy politics where that same money, and probably even more, would be spent to ensure that the Democrats stay in power and their friends stay wealthy.

If Georgia Republicans don't stick together and prove to the citizens of Georgia that we can govern better than the Democrats (which should be a no-brainer), we will be one-hit wonders who will have to live with gloating Democrats back in charge in Atlanta. You can be sure that, if they do get the majority back, they will take steps to make sure they are safely entrenched so they stay in power.

You will have a choice of Governors in two years. Sonny Perdue or Mark Taylor. Which one do you want?

Sad but true. Only the two flavors of the party of big government and its official propaganda arm the lamestream media. The only hope I see is the internet which I hope can bring enough truth and enlightenement to rekindle conservatism rather than the statist brainwashing from government sponsored lies and distortions from the old media.

Unfortunately even this site is polluted by statist worship (look at the sychophantic adulation of King George II on the day in the life of GWB thread).

18
posted on 01/13/2005 5:28:41 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

He wasn't running for governor, but if we had more people like him in the legislature, there would be a lot more "NO" votes on budgets like this. Personally I think he'd make a fine governor, but his chances of getting elected are about a trillion to one and he has no intention or desire to run.

A spending increase, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing.

A government spending increase is a bad thing. You don't look at the fact that the taxpayers have to pay for it with money that they could have actually spent on things that they needed and wanted.

Prices rise, the population is growing, the economy is also growing, and the state has to grow and modernize as it happens.

Why does the state have to keep up? What constitutional function needs to be increased? Hint - none

State government has to be changed, upgraded, and modernized.

Again why and what needs to be "modernized" Biometric drivers' licenses? An abomination equivalent to the camp number on the arm of a concentration camp inmate. Health care? Why should I pay for someone else's health care? Health care is a commodity. If I'm obligated to pay for some one else's kids' health care why not take money that I could spend on my family and force me to pay for their entire maintenance? Is this the conservative way - Hell no, but it's the republican was and the democrat way.

If Georgia Republicans don't stick together and prove to the citizens of Georgia that we can govern better than the Democrats (which should be a no-brainer), we will be one-hit wonders who will have to live with gloating Democrats back in charge in Atlanta.

You carry on as though there was a substantive difference between the two. I should remind you that until a couple of years ago good ol' Sonny was a Democrat. He just changed his label and party affiliation, not his nature.

21
posted on 01/13/2005 5:42:49 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

.... Democrats, attacked Perdue for ``a lack of vision, a lack of priorities, a lack of leadership'' in presiding over two years of steep cuts to education and health care, and said Perdue should have focused on the strained state of Georgia families rather than the state of the state.

Democrats always put forth this argument in order to get the elected Republicans to spend the tax payer's money like the proverbial drunken sailor. Then when the next election rolls around, the Democrats will retake the election, as conservatives will have fled the party in disgust. The Democrats may be liars and thieves, but they are dead on in knowing what it takes to roll a Republican.

A government spending increase is a bad thing. You don't look at the fact that the taxpayers have to pay for it with money that they could have actually spent on things that they needed and wanted.

I suppose the 1976 Georgia budget would be sufficient then? Or maybe the 1876 budget? Why not the 1776 state budget?

Why does the state have to keep up? What constitutional function needs to be increased? Hint - none

Drive west and you will find Alabama. A little further, and you will find Mississippi. Either of those should answer your question to my satisfaction.

Again why and what needs to be "modernized" Biometric drivers' licenses? An abomination equivalent to the camp number on the arm of a concentration camp inmate. Health care? Why should I pay for someone else's health care? Health care is a commodity. If I'm obligated to pay for some one else's kids' health care why not take money that I could spend on my family and force me to pay for their entire maintenance? Is this the conservative way - Hell no, but it's the republican was and the democrat way.

Do you like standing in line for two hours to get your biometric driver's license? How about electronic voting machines? If we are going to help pay for people's health care, which both of us know that we will, shouldn't we do it as efficiently as possible. By spending money to upgrade facilities, equipment, and so forth, we can save money in the long run. THAT is the conservative way (but maybe not the Libertarian way).

You carry on as though there was a substantive difference between the two. I should remind you that until a couple of years ago good ol' Sonny was a Democrat. He just changed his label and party affiliation, not his nature.

You're right, I do believe there's a difference. You don't need to remind me that Sonny was a Democrat (so was Reagan), and you are right, he didn't change his nature. I was happy with Sonny's nature when he was a Democrat, and that is what led him to become a Republican. In fact, his reasons for switching from Dem to Republican were the same as mine.

I suppose the 1976 Georgia budget would be sufficient then? Or maybe the 1876 budget? Why not the 1776 state budget?

Works for me

Drive west and you will find Alabama. A little further, and you will find Mississippi.

Are you implying that there is something wrong with Mississippi or Alabama?

Whee fun coming up

Do you like standing in line for two hours to get your biometric driver's license?

I don't believe that there should be biometric drivers' licenses at all.

How about electronic voting machines?

The old ones worked just fine. The new electronic voting machines are just a way to transfer taxpayer dollars into corporate pockets - corporate welfare

If we are going to help pay for people's health care, which both of us know that we will, shouldn't we do it as efficiently as possible.

Wrong question. We SHOULD NOT be paying for health care other than our own. Why not pay for televisions for the indolent also. No difference.

By spending money to upgrade facilities, equipment, and so forth, we can save money in the long run. THAT is the conservative way (but maybe not the Libertarian way).

Its the moderate way, or maybe the liberal way, although liberals would want to spend even more. The conservative way would be to shrink the scope of government, and the libertarian way would be to throw 95% of it out.

You're right, I do believe there's a difference.

In form only, not in substance. They both believe in government spending fueled by taxation. It's just a matter of degree not fundamental difference.

27
posted on 01/13/2005 9:40:42 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

The old ones were antiques, and no longer in production. They were going to have to be replaced anyway because you can't get parts for them.

Evaded that question, as well.

You are right that shrinking the scope of government is a goal of conservative politics, but it won't get done the first two years we're in power. The first thing that has to happen is to get the mess we have in working order, and only then can we effectively begin paring it down.

It's a matter of perception. I see vast differences between the two, but I also see the realities of staying in office long enough to make the changes that we want to make. If I were state dictator for life, I would just make decrees. Perdue has to get support for ideas, and needs to be re-elected. People who expect the impossible will be sadly disappointed. The State of Georgia didn't get in this mess overnight, and it won't get fixed that fast either.

They've also taken the caps off class sizes, so now I can have 30 or so science students in a room built for about 24. It's not the numbers I mind so much as not having room to turn around, and it's hard to keep an eye on everyone during lab.

Zell was the last teacher-friendly governor we've had, but Zell knew what being a teacher was like.

Umm hello yourself. People at the ATF work too (at least as far as they know), but who cares? What they do isn't something that anyone would pay them for if it weren't for government regulations and the ability of government to plunder taxpayers and spend the money on things that bureaucrats want. If it weren't for tax fueled manditory education that takes from the workers and gives to the bureaucrats you might NOT have a job (unless you worked for a private school.)

You have to consider government jobs in the light if it weren't for government regulations would the jobs even exist in the free market? And the answer for teachers is complex. Yes surely there would be a demand, but it wouldn't be the same since the parents of many might not chose to ejjicate their chillin if they actually had to pay for it.

(some of us might even work harder than you do),

Possible, but so what?

and we also pay state taxes

Again so what? You're still a net tax consumer. You just consume a little less than your gross pay amount.

Is a 13% increase in your insurance premiums equal to a 2% increase in your gross pay? So you really pay almost 16% of your gross salary for insurance? No. I didn't think so, although the freshly educated from public schools might fall for it.

They've also taken the caps off class sizes, so now I can have 30 or so science students in a room built for about 24

What is the voodoo about class size? When you went to college (as presumably you did to get a degree) did you ever have a lecture with a couple of hundred people in it? Of course you did. Was your ability to learn diminshed in proportion to the number of people in the class? If you had 200 fellow students instead of 20 did you learn 1/10th as much because of it? Of course not.

it's hard to keep an eye on everyone during lab

If they require constant supervision during lab, then maybe labs aren't appropriate for that age group.

but Zell knew what being a teacher was like.

What makes you think people don't know what teaching is like? Do you think that if everyone spent a couple of months in a classroom that they would rush out to press their tax dollars on you? Think again.

Bottom line is if you don't like the pay you can do something else that pays better. The government hasn't (yet at least) frozen people in their jobs. I propose the hypothesis that if teachers were really dissatisfied with their pay and working conditions they'd find other employment in droves. But they don't, so either they're not qualified to do anything else (unlikely) or that they found their appropriate level of compensation in the labor market.

32
posted on 01/14/2005 3:39:56 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

Yes surely there would be a demand, but it wouldn't be the same since the parents of many might not chose to ejjicate their chillin if they actually had to pay for it.

Some people couldn't afford to "ejjicate their chillin" [elitist wording there, eh?] if they had to pay for it. That's the reason public schools came into being - the people decided an educated citizenry would be an asset to our society.

What is the voodoo about class size?

Not a problem, as far as I'm concerned, if the room is designed to hold that many, as large lecture halls are. You must also realize that those in college classes choose to be there. They aren't mandated by the law, their parents, or the juvenile court judge.

But they don't, so either they're not qualified to do anything else (unlikely) or that they found their appropriate level of compensation in the labor market.

I love teaching, and I choose to do it. Before I chose to teach, I probably made more than you do. I can afford to do it, because my husband has a good job. That doesn't mean I can't see the pros and cons.

In any case, my point wasn't to complain about my job. My point is, Perdue isn't exactly pandering to teachers' unions.

That's the reason public schools came into being - the people decided an educated citizenry would be an asset to our society.

You're letting your subconscious collectivist conditioning show here. The people didn't decide anything the bureaucrats did. A lot of people don't like public education and choose to send their kids to private school or home school. A lot just look at as taxpayer funded day care. As far as affording it, if there weren't the high tax burden for the innumerable collectivist wealth redistribution and social engineering programs, most of us could afford a whole lot more than we do.

You must also realize that those in college classes choose to be there. They aren't mandated by the law, their parents, or the juvenile court judge.

Yes, exactly my point about public education. It is a government mandated system, not a free market system. If people had the choice they might choose something else.

I love teaching, and I choose to do it.

So in your case the money isn't a factor, but you like the job. I nevertheless suspect that you wouldn't do it for free. Money is always a factor, maybe less a factor in your case than others. but I'm sure it's still there.

Before I chose to teach, I probably made more than you do.

My, what an arrogant comment (and irrelevant too). It's always possible, but the odds are about 50 to 1 that you're wrong.

I can afford to do it, because my husband has a good job. That doesn't mean I can't see the pros and cons.

You just made a good argument that you should be paid less :-)

My point is, Perdue isn't exactly pandering to teachers' unions.

By spending the taxpayer loot rather than decreasing the tax burden he's pandering to someone. for road construction read pandering to construction contractors (who by the way were the driving force behind the recent Gwinnett county sales tax referendum calling themselves "Citizens for fair tax" or something totally misleadling like that) for education read pandering to teachers unions.

The fact remains when you increase the state budget you're taking money from the ones who earned it and spending it on those who whine for it. When government spends money, it spends it on something that is politically driven, not market driven.

34
posted on 01/14/2005 4:53:46 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

The State of Georgia didn't get in this mess overnight, and it won't get fixed that fast either

The state of Ga isn't in all that big a mess at least compared to places like NY and NJ. Although, increasing taxation and government spending is a good way to get it closer to the aformentioned socialist police states.

Government isn't what makes things great. Free enterprise is, and every time you increase taxes and government spending you reduce the chance citizens have to expand free enterprise.

35
posted on 01/14/2005 5:06:51 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

That is something we can agree on. Obviously, I would rather live in Ga than NY or NJ. We can also agree on your statements about government not making things great, and I am as opposed to higher taxes as anyone.

Note carefully, however, that we are not talking about an increase in taxes, we are talking about an increase in spending. As long as tax revenue is high enough to cover the increase in spending, I don't necessarily have a problem with it. That is what is happening at the moment. Perdue forced spending cuts for the past two years because tax revenue was down, and now that the revenues are rising with the economy, he is increasing spending accordingly so that he can accomplish what he sees necessary. If all he does is continues to cut spending and doesn't accomplish anything else, he will be a one term governor.

The fact is that taxes are going down. I just learned today that sales taxes are being waived on materials bought to make permanent home improvements. That is a smart move that will help to not only stir the economy, it will help to improve the condition of people's homes.

Note carefully, however, that we are not talking about an increase in taxes, we are talking about an increase in spending.

At state government one equates to the other since states can't run on deficits like the fed. To spend more, the state has to rake in more tax. Now the tax rate might not increase, but the total tax has increased. If the state is taking the same proportional bite of a larger pie, then the state is taking in more money, hence a tax increase even though the rate remains the same.

If all he does is continues to cut spending and doesn't accomplish anything else, he will be a one term governor.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that he can't accomplish anything with a $16,000,000,000 budget. Cutting programs and taxes is accomplishing something - something pretty worthwhile from my viewpoint.

37
posted on 01/17/2005 6:12:37 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

At state government one equates to the other since states can't run on deficits like the fed.

Not true at all. At a set tax rate, as the economy goes up and down, tax revenue follows. When the economy was down, Perdue cut spending. Now that the economy is up, tax revenue is up, and it stands to reason that spending can rise with it. As long as the spending is on the right things, and it doesn't result in a tax rate increase, I have no problem with that.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that he can't accomplish anything with a $16,000,000,000 budget.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also believe that making improvements to education, government services, and foster care are important too. There are a good many roads that need to be improved, and some that need to be built. I expect these things from a good governor.

the tax rate might not increase, but the total tax has increased. If the state is taking the same proportional bite of a larger pie, then the state is taking in more money, hence a tax increase even though the rate remains the same.

As long as the spending is on the right things, and it doesn't result in a tax rate increase, I have no problem with that.

I think we're saying the same thing here. It's just that you think it's OK and I don't.

39
posted on 01/17/2005 6:57:57 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

I think we're saying the same thing here. It's just that you think it's OK and I don't.

You are quite right. I think it would be unrealist to expect that the government wouldn't use the revenues generated by the tax rate that has already been set by law. If we had set a revenue projection, and ceased collecting taxes once that projection was made, it would be a different story altogether. It is normal, and expected, that the government is going to use the revenues generated by a set rate.

What is debatable, however, is how that money is used. If it is wasted, and then a tax rate increase becomes necessary to cover necessary costs, then I have a problem with it.

I'm pretty sure - though I'm willing to shift my view if I'm wrong - that no one has ever died from not having a television.

Not relevant. Health care is a commodity like anything else. Is someone else's misfortune (ie being sick) your moral responsibility? I don't think so. For Example, if someone else engages in behavior that leads to AIDS, then should you and I be obligated to pay for treatment? If someone sends their money back to Mexico and then applies for Medicade should they get it? If people download children that they can't afford why should we pay for their education? This is socialism - the redistributionist philosophy that bankrupted every notion that has persisted in following it.

44
posted on 07/15/2005 7:32:21 AM PDT
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

It is a debatable point whether government should provide anyone with health care. My point was that it is not quite so debatable whether providing health care is 'no different' from providing a TV.

As far as the actual debatable point goes, it is easy ideologically to take your position. It is more difficult practically, because there are some situations that I just don't think our populace is going to accept. You are correct that some people are responsible for their own health care crises. But some are not. I don't think that we, as a nation, are prepared to say "tough sh#@" to a child brought into the ER by a parent without the resources to pay for health care. We may be, but I don't think so. So, at present, those who show up to a publicly funded ER get care, whether they can pay or not. If this is our standard, I'd much prefer that we provide efficient care to those persons, rather than crisis care. It is cheaper and more responsible to do so. For me, the only way around this conclusion is to decide that we are going to turn those folks away at the ER.

Should we segregate such care between those who are simply unable to provide for their own health care needs (children, disabled, elderly) and those who can? Probably. But I'll be amazed if we ever get to the point, as a nation, where we decide that those who can't pay for health care can just go ahead and die.

As far as the actual debatable point goes, it is easy ideologically to take your position. It is more difficult practically, because there are some situations that I just don't think our populace is going to accept. You are correct that some people are responsible for their own health care crises. But some are not. I don't think that we, as a nation, are prepared to say "tough sh#@" to a child brought into the ER by a parent without the resources to pay for health care.

Anyone who goes to an ER in any hospital in the USA today is treated regardless of the ability to pay now. The costs are just passed on to those of us who pay our bills. Although what do you think about a homeless junkie who runs up a couple of hundred thousand bill. I know doctors who'd like to pull the plug on these guys.

My biggest problem is not about emergent care, but ongoing problems. I thnk that free clinics should be done away with EXCEPT as supported by charity. If someone wants to donate money for the care of others, then more power to 'em. I just don't think that it should be a function of government.

Health care is on that evil list of "human rights" that the UN promulgates (and btw was authored by Elanor Roosveldt). IF I have a "right" to health care, then someone has an obligation to provide it. Either you make the doctors work for free (kind of like they do in Canada) for your fellow taxpayers cough up the cash. For example an electro-cautery machine costs about $30k If surgery is my right, then is the manufacturer obligtated to provide the mache for free? You're welcome to form whatever opinions you want of course, but I just don't think so.

47
posted on 07/15/2005 8:26:29 AM PDT
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

I think I stated that anyone can get emergency care. I also thought it was pretty clear from your post that you think they shouldn't.

I don't think we are going to get rid of emergency care for indigents. If we accept that premise, then my issue becomes 'why have we chose to provide free health care in the most expensive, least effective manner?'. I'd much rather have the government spend $50 of my money to keep the kid from getting sick than $500 for an ER visit when he gets sick. As I said, for me, the only way around this conclusion is to say that we aren't gonna pay for the eventual ER visit. As long as we are, I think we should try to control those costs as best we can.

I'd much rather have the government spend $50 of my money to keep the kid from getting sick than $500 for an ER visit when he gets sick.

Then you're accepting socialism. This idea of everyone's wants becoming obligations to the rest of us is a late 19th century idea that really got its main impetus under FDR, and the more socialism that we have the screwier the country becomes. I'm much rather the parents or a charitable institution pay rather than force me to pay, and the hell with junkies. If they want to shoot up, let them, but then if they die from an OD that's their problem too.

50
posted on 07/15/2005 9:34:37 AM PDT
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.